Gore urges U.S. Congress to take speedy action on global warming

Gore urges U.S. Congress to take speedy action on global warming

In a return he described as emotional, Gore testified before House panels that it is not too late to deal with climate change “and we have everything we need to get started.” He said it will require a ban on any new coal-burning power plants, which lack state-of-the-art controls to capture greenhouse gases.

Gore also said he foresees a revolution in small-scale electricity producers for replacing coal, likening the development to what the Internet has done for the exchange of information. He also advocated tougher fuel-economy standards for cars and trucks.

Gore has gained international recognition with his Oscar-winning documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” as perhaps the leading spokesman on global warming.

The GOP minority on the EPW committee agreed to the 30 minute opening statement.

But then Gore demanded a waiver of the EPW committee’s 48 hour rule that requires all witnesses before EPW to submit their testimony in advance. The GOP minority on the EPW committee then agreed to waive the 48 hour rule in favor of allowing Gore to submit his testimony 24 hours before the hearing.

But in a breaking news development on Capitol Hill – the former Vice President has violated the new 24 hour deadline extension by failing to submit his testimony – even with the new time extension granted to Gore.

As of 8pm ET Tuesday evening, the testimony still has not been received by EPW, a clear violation of committee rules.

The word on Capitol Hill says not to expect Gore’s testimony to the Senate EPW committee until Wednesday (March 21) – the day of the hearing.

It appears that Gore does not believe the same rules apply to him that apply to every other Senate EPW witness.

The question looms on Capitol Hill: Is Gore delaying the submission of his testimony until the very last moment because he fears it will give members of the EPW committee time to scrutinize it for accuracy?

At 9:29AMET Wednesday – after the issue was raised by Fox News Channel – former Vice President Gore’s testimony was received by the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee. Gore’s testimony was given to Committee members just one minute before his scheduled House appearance and mere hours before his scheduled Senate appearance.

The time for partisan bickering is OVER! Al Gore is correct (which has been affirmed by the scientists at RealClimate.org). People like Morano, Inhofe, Crichton (who is a bloody fiction writer, for Pete’s sake!), Singer, and Ball are wrong (and their loopy ideas are contrary to the IPCC’s findings).

(Sorry for the caps, but I’ve had enough of the low-life tactics of those who wish to continue with the status quo.)

Senator Inhofe probably wouldn’t have felt it if Barbara Boxer had rapped his noggin with the gavel, so wooden-headed was his performance yesterday. Inhofe asked Gore a really good question: How Calamity Al reconciles his predicted sea level rise of 23 feet with the IPCC’s prediction of 23 inches? But instead of letting Al answer, Inhofe blabbered on in some sort of mini-filibuster and let Gore off the hook by having Boxer intervene. I would loved to have heard Gore’s reply just as I would love to hear his replies to a host of other questions climatologists have asked about the alleged scientific claims in his movie.

John, your problem is that you refuse to actually listen. What Gore said about the sea level rise, if you actually paid attention, was that if the Greenland ice sheet were to melt, that sea levels would rise an average of 6 or 7 metres and that a similar rise would occur if the West Antarctic ice sheet were to melt. He never said that this would happen by 2100 or thereabouts. It was purely a hypothetical situation.

Johan wrote “Unrealclimate.org might have some scientists posting there, but, as we all know, it is another AGW alarmist PR and spin site.” Now if Johan had made that statement about RealClimate.org, then Johan would be a liar.

Anyone intelligent who visits RealClimate.org and reads a few of the posts and discussions will soon realise that it is about the science, not about politics or PR or spin. They occasionally talk about media reports in order to criticise faulty science in them. http://www.realclimate.org/

Al Gore uses information received from and largely corroborated by other credible sources. His only contribution is to present that information in a clear and intelligent, if slightly simplistic way, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Clear thinking is what this debate needs.

Crichton, I assume, is equally credible…when he’s writing fiction. I’ve never read him, but he seems to have written a book about hype getting out of control, etc… Great. I’m sure it’s entertaining and true, in a general sense, to human nature. BUT…and this is the difficulty thing to understand, aparently… it’s FICTION. Just because it’s plausible, doesn’t mean it’s probable, or much less: proven.

The greater part of the denierists’ position right now seems to rely on this fictional meta-narrative of a world gone out of control, and all the “facts” (or better yet, non-facts) are drummed up to serve it.

In 2003, author Michael Crichton called out the tobacco smoke scare mongering in a widely noted address at Cal-Tech on the topic of scientific fallacies of the day. Crichton observed that pressure-group tactics and an appeal to consensus, the notion that “everybody” believes something, has replaced actual scientific evidence in far too many public policy disputes. He explained:

In 1998, a Federal judge held that the EPA had acted improperly, had “committed to a conclusion before research had begun”, and had “disregarded information and made findings on selective information.” The reaction of Carol Browner, head of the EPA was: “We stand by our science .there’s wide agreement. The American people certainly recognize that exposure to second hand smoke brings a whole host of health problems.” Again, note how the claim of consensus trumps science. In this case, it isn’t even a consensus of scientists that Browner evokes! It’s the consensus of the American people.

As with nuclear winter, bad science is used to promote what most people would consider good policy. I certainly think it is. I don’t want people smoking around me. So who will speak out against banning second-hand smoke? Nobody, and if you do, you’ll be branded a shill of RJ Reynolds. A big tobacco flunky. But the truth is that we now have a social policy supported by the grossest of superstitions.

Here’s at item I came across a while ago that was written to address claims about the Maldives. It is in line with other material I have seen recently, stating the rate of sea level rise has been pretty constant for the last 100 years or more. The source is listed at the end. WARNING. Te author is on the Desmog list of unclean heretics.
Coastal flooding; myths and facts in past, present and future sea level changes by Nils-Axel Mörne –
Flooding of coastal lowlands and islands has the potential of generating “catastrophes”. The boundary between myths and reality is vague for the past, and, as a matter of fact, even for future predictions. The postglacial rise in sea level undoubtedly implied flooding of vast areas. The smaller-scale oscillations in sea level in during the Middle and Late Holocene affected coastal conditions, too. Tsunamis and storms may lead to instantaneous destruction.
In the last 5000 years, global mean sea level has been dominated by the redistribution of water masses over the globe. In the last 300 years, sea level has been oscillation close to the present with peak rates in the period 1890-1930. Between 1930 and 1950, sea levels fell. The late 20th century lack any sign of acceleration. Satellite altimetry indicates virtually no changes in the last decade. Therefore, observationally based predictions of future sea level in the year 2100 will give a value of +10 +10 cm (or +5 +15 cm), by this discarding model out-puts by IPCC as well as global loading models. This implies that there is no fear of any massive future flooding as claimed in most global warming scenarios.
Novel prospects for the Maldives do not include a condemnation to future flooding. The people of the Maldives have, in the past, survived a higher sea level of about 50–60 cm. The present trend lack signs of a sea level rise. On the contrary there is firm morphological evidence of a significant sea level fall in the last 30 years. This sea level fall is likely to be the effect of increased evaporation and an intensification of the NE-monsoon over the central Indian Ocean. http://atlas-conferences.com/cgi-bin/abstract/caiq-28

It’s becoming more and more apparent that Al Gore has exaggerated the effects of climate change and his movie is filled with inaccuracies. Even many scientists are starting to publicly state the extremism of the climate change alarmists needs to be toned down - something that Littlemore and the others here at Smogblog should consider.
Mike Hulme, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in the UK has raised the issue of the alarmists in several articles, including one on the BBC:
(www.news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6115644.stm).
In a recent letter to Nature magazine discussing media coverage of the release of the IPCC summary, Hulme wrote:
“The four UK ‘quality’ newspapers all ran front-page headlines conveying a message of rising anxiety: “Final warning”, “Worse than we thought”, “New fears on climate raise heat on leaders” and “Only man can stop climate disaster”. And all nine newspapers introduced one or more of the adjectives “catastrophic”, “shocking”, “terrifying” or “devastating” in their various qualifications of climate change. Yet none of these words exist in the
report, nor were they used in the scientists’ presentations in Paris:(www.tyndall.ac.uk/media/news/Naturehulme.pdf).
Get it - none of that catastrophic language appears in the report. Of course, I assume all the alarmists here will now accuse Hulme of being funded by Exxon.

What should it say, given the predictions from NASA and others? … localized, minor, no big deal? The press than turns a (so far unseen) mildy negative e-mail from a flamer into “five deaths threats”, “from global warming alarmists”, can certainly add “devastating” to a world-wide problem like the one forecast… no?

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.

Keep In Touch

Every good magician knows that the key to success is misdirecting the audience. You have to draw everyone’s attention away from your ultimate goal in order to perform the trick. Politics is no different, and one of the greatest misdirections in recent memory has been pulled off by the fossil fuel industry.

While most of the environmental movement was (rightfully) focusing attention on stopping the Keystone XL tar sands export pipeline from crossing over one of the most vital aquifers in the U.S., the dirty energy industry was quietly building a network of...